PDA

View Full Version : Bands playing entire albums live: Yay or Nay?


powerslave_85
07-29-2007, 02:50 PM
I've noticed that in the last couple of years a lot more bands are getting into the habit of playing entire albums as part of their setlist. I know a lot of people were disappointed when Maiden did all of AMOLAD on their last tour, and I can see how this sort of thing could be a bummer for people who are seeing a band for the first time. I've only seen a band do this once (Alkaline Trio playing all of Goddamnit), but I think it's a cool idea and I would like to see more bands do it. I'm already drooling at the prospect of seeing Tegan and Sara play all of their new album in November :party:

So, what are your thoughts? Is it a cool way to change up the experience for the fans, or is it just a boring new album gimmick?

DethMaiden
07-29-2007, 02:54 PM
This is sort of a multi-faceted question:

Bands playing full albums, yay; bands playing full new albums, sometimes nay.

When a band comes out and plays an unquestionable classic live in its entirety (Anthrax with Among the Living, Slayer with Reign in Blood, Metallica with Master of Puppets, Queensryche with Mindcrime, etc.), it's really fucking awesome, albeit a bit gimmicky.

When bands play their entire newest album, it's a gamble. AMOLAD in its entirety left room for, what, six other songs? That was a stupid move. Mindcrime II was played in full to complete the story from the Broadway aspect, so that's okay. And Porcupine Tree playing the full Fear of a Blank Planet album this year, well, fans (like me) are hailing it as their best, so they have every right to come out and play it all every night (especially since they encore with a full goddamn setlist, unlike Maiden).

So it's hit or miss really.


EDIT: Voted yes though. Most bands who do it do it right.

powerslave_85
07-29-2007, 02:57 PM
(especially since they encore with a full goddamn setlist, unlike Maiden).Yeah, this is a big part of the question. When I saw Alkaline Trio, they played the whole album and then did a whole other full set after that. I would have enjoyed Maiden doing all of AMOLAD, because I've seen them before and heard all the "standards," so it would be nice to see them doing something different, especially since they are so notorious for rigid, unchanging setlists.

DethMaiden
07-29-2007, 02:59 PM
Yeah, this is a big part of the question. When I saw Alkaline Trio, they played the whole album and then did a whole other full set after that. I would have enjoyed Maiden doing all of AMOLAD, because I've seen them before and heard all the "standards," so it would be nice to see them doing something different, especially since they are so notorious for rigid, unchanging setlists.

But if Maiden did AMOLAD, then fifteen songs and said fuck you to Bullet for My Valentine, no one would be complaining.

powerslave_85
07-29-2007, 03:00 PM
But if Maiden did AMOLAD, then fifteen songs and said fuck you to Bullet for My Valentine, no one would be complaining.
I hear ya, but Maiden's setlists are a whooooooole other can of worms ;)

JRA
07-29-2007, 03:07 PM
Well, over "Usual stuff I expect them to play" of course I'd choose the entire album. Enh, I guess if its a classic maybe. But if its a brand new album: If its a concept album that tells a story, then why the hell not? But in a case like AMOLAD, then that's just plain arrogance. I mean yea veteran bands have the right to not just play two new songs and stick to the hits. And Maiden did that, they played six new songs for the BNW and DOD. I think they should have just stuck to that with AMOLAD.

What's really insulting is the fact that they only did the "new album in its entirety" thing just for N. America. Yes I understand that the places they've never been to before deserve to hear "Run To The Hills" and what not for the first time, but then they go and pull that "A Matter Of Beast and Death" bullshit when it was time to go to Europe. What the fuck was that? Its almost as if Bruce wants to punish the Americans for being "too corporate" or whatever his problem was.



Wow, that was unexpected.:eyes:

ravenheart
07-29-2007, 03:59 PM
Yay in almost every sense except one: playing a new album in full immediately after it's come out.

A few months later, yes. Straight away, no. No one knows it and it's just a waste of time.

In every other instance, absolutely yes.

ravenheart
07-29-2007, 04:10 PM
What's really insulting is the fact that they only did the "new album in its entirety" thing just for N. America.

That's not true at all. They played it everywhere they were playing headlining shows on the proper AMOLAD tour in 2006.

The reason they didn't play it on European summer 2007 shows was because they were playing festivals. Most of the crowds weren't Maiden fans and on several occasions they didn't even have a full two-hour set. Plus, it's an entirely different tour, so it's a different setlist.

On the proper AMOLAD tour, which happened at the end of 2006, they played the full album. Look at the setlists for all of the UK, Germany, Holland, Sweden etc dates from November/December 2006. It was the same as the September/October US leg.

ravenheart
07-29-2007, 04:11 PM
EDIT: Voted yes though. Most bands who do it do it right.


Yes they do. I saw Jon Oliva's Pain play the entire Savatage Streets album as a one off this year. Amazing.

DethMaiden
07-29-2007, 04:20 PM
Yes they do. I saw Jon Oliva's Pain play the entire Savatage Streets album as a one off this year. Amazing.

:drool: Such a fantastic album. Without Criss though :snivel:

Div
07-29-2007, 07:14 PM
Its a good way to see songs you usually wouldnt ever get to hear live, and I like the idea of playing albums live... just as long as they don't do it all the time.

Blitzkrieg Witchcraft
07-29-2007, 08:21 PM
nay on new albums played in their entirety. yay on classic albums being played in their entirety.

sitting through Dio's Magica was painful.

Getting to see Reign in Blood from start to finish was a treat.

ravenheart
07-30-2007, 12:38 AM
sitting through Dio's Magica was painful.

I would have loved every second of that.

SomewhereInTime72
07-30-2007, 09:37 AM
Its a good way to see songs you usually wouldnt ever get to hear live, and I like the idea of playing albums live... just as long as they don't do it all the time.

This is how I feel. A better vote for me wouldn't have been "yeah" but more like "usually." And by the way, I loved the AMOLAD tour. :finger:

EvilCheeseWedge
07-30-2007, 10:21 AM
sitting through Dio's Magica was painful.

:lol: I can imagine. That album is very long and plodding, wouldn't make for an interesting live show I would think.

I'm generally okay with whole albums though. Mindcrime and Mindcrime II were pretty fun for me. But I think if bands did this year in and year out it would be rather tired after a while. But every once and a while going on tour centered around an album, new or old, yes, I think that's pretty cool.

SirLardsAlot
08-01-2007, 07:44 AM
Depends on the length of the setlist if you ask me. Like Brad said, if they play an album and then another 10-15 more songs, then it's fine with me. But When they play just an entire album or an album and like three songs, eh. I'd like to hear more stuff than not.

Maiden33
08-01-2007, 06:57 PM
This is sort of a multi-faceted question:

Bands playing full albums, yay; bands playing full new albums, sometimes nay.

When a band comes out and plays an unquestionable classic live in its entirety (Anthrax with Among the Living, Slayer with Reign in Blood, Metallica with Master of Puppets, Queensryche with Mindcrime, etc.), it's really fucking awesome, albeit a bit gimmicky.

When bands play their entire newest album, it's a gamble. AMOLAD in its entirety left room for, what, six other songs? That was a stupid move. Mindcrime II was played in full to complete the story from the Broadway aspect, so that's okay. And Porcupine Tree playing the full Fear of a Blank Planet album this year, well, fans (like me) are hailing it as their best, so they have every right to come out and play it all every night (especially since they encore with a full goddamn setlist, unlike Maiden).

So it's hit or miss really.


EDIT: Voted yes though. Most bands who do it do it right.

Just the kind of shit logic I'd expect from a Queensryche fanboy. Now Ryche are one of my favorite bands, but the whole Mindcrime thing is such a gimmick at this point.

Maiden33
08-01-2007, 06:59 PM
This is how I feel. A better vote for me wouldn't have been "yeah" but more like "usually." And by the way, I loved the AMOLAD tour. :finger:

I think the AMOLAD set list was probably the best thing to happen to Maiden's set list ever. One: it allowed for a bunch of new songs to get played live that would never have otherwise, Two: They eliminated stuff like NOTB, RTTH, and Wrathchild in favor of additional songs like 23:58 and The Evil That Men Do, and 3: It showed that they may not be so stuck in their ways that they can actually pick out creative set lists.

es156
08-01-2007, 08:00 PM
Just the kind of shit logic I'd expect from a Queensryche fanboy. Now Ryche are one of my favorite bands, but the whole Mindcrime thing is such a gimmick at this point.

This I don't agree with at all.

I think the AMOLAD set list was probably the best thing to happen to Maiden's set list ever. One: it allowed for a bunch of new songs to get played live that would never have otherwise, Two: They eliminated stuff like NOTB, RTTH, and Wrathchild in favor of additional songs like 23:58 and The Evil That Men Do, and 3: It showed that they may not be so stuck in their ways that they can actually pick out creative set lists.

This I totally agree with.

es156
08-01-2007, 08:03 PM
This is how I feel. A better vote for me wouldn't have been "yeah" but more like "usually." And by the way, I loved the AMOLAD tour. :finger:

:agree:

The AMOLAD tour was awesome beyond belief. Definitely one of my top 5 favorite shows of all time. I wish I could have seen it more that once.

DethMaiden
08-01-2007, 08:05 PM
:agree:

The AMOLAD tour was awesome beyond belief. Definitely one of my top 5 favorite shows of all time. I wish I could have seen it more that once.

I wish I could have seen it once. Eight dates, pfft.

es156
08-01-2007, 08:11 PM
I wish I could have seen it once. Eight dates, pfft.

Yeah, that really ticks me off. They play 4 or 5 dates in a cluster on the east coast, 1 in Chicago, and a couple in California. If I had known that would be all the dates for the U.S., I would have flown somewhere to see it again.

DethMaiden
08-01-2007, 08:19 PM
Yeah, that really ticks me off. They play 4 or 5 dates in a cluster on the east coast, 1 in Chicago, and a couple in California. If I had known that would be all the dates for the U.S., I would have flown somewhere to see it again.

I mean, look at Rush. They're hitting as many cities as bands a third their age. Maiden should at least have the respect for their U.S. fans to do a proper 15-20 date tour.

Maiden33
08-01-2007, 08:47 PM
I mean, look at Rush. They're hitting as many cities as bands a third their age. Maiden should at least have the respect for their U.S. fans to do a proper 15-20 date tour.

I think you picked a pretty bad band to use as an example. This isn't a knock on Rush but their stage performances aren't 1/5 as challenging as Maiden's are. Sure the music's more complicated but they are more talented musicians and are used to it. When Alex Lifeson runs around and jumps off monitors and swings his guitar around and when Geddy Lee matches Bruce's caliber of frontmanship we'll talk.

DethMaiden
08-01-2007, 08:50 PM
I think you picked a pretty bad band to use as an example. This isn't a knock on Rush but their stage performances aren't 1/5 as challenging as Maiden's are. Sure the music's more complicated but they are more talented musicians and are used to it. When Alex Lifeson runs around and jumps off monitors and swings his guitar around and when Geddy Lee matches Bruce's caliber of frontmanship we'll talk.

Geddy sure does spend a lot more time singing and playing than ranting. Just sayin'.

Maiden33
08-01-2007, 08:52 PM
Geddy sure does spend a lot more time singing and playing than ranting. Just sayin'.

You know the Bruce rant comment's just a little bit played out, especially since it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be in the first place. That's beside the point anyway.
You and I had this same conversation last night, we shouldnt bother going back.

DethMaiden
08-01-2007, 08:53 PM
You know the Bruce rant comment's just a little bit played out, especially since it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be in the first place. That's beside the point anyway.
You and I had this same conversation last night, we shouldnt bother going back.

Yeah, haha. Feel like I've been here before...;)

Maiden33
08-01-2007, 08:56 PM
Yeah, haha. Feel like I've been here before...;)

I've always thought it funny that the chorus is so repetative and the line is "Feel like I've been here before"... by the end you're like, yeah I do feel like that, maybe it's because... I HAVE! 64,000 times in the last 4 minutes!
Haha, I love the song regardless though.

DethMaiden
08-01-2007, 08:58 PM
I've always thought it funny that the chorus is so repetative and the line is "Feel like I've been here before"... by the end you're like, yeah I do feel like that, maybe it's because... I HAVE! 64,000 times in the last 4 minutes!
Haha, I love the song regardless though.

My second least favorite on SIT after Alexander. But hey, great record, none of the songs suck.

Maiden33
08-01-2007, 08:59 PM
My second least favorite on SIT after Alexander. But hey, great record, none of the songs suck.

Haha Deju Vu and Alexander along with CSIT are my 3 favorites on that album.

powerslave_85
08-01-2007, 09:04 PM
My second least favorite on SIT after Alexander. But hey, great record, none of the songs suck.
I love Deja Vu. Alexander sucks, though.

DethMaiden
08-01-2007, 09:08 PM
I love Deja Vu. Alexander sucks, though.

If it were an instrumental it would be great. I have a hard time liking it thanks to Brucey though.

Div
08-01-2007, 09:10 PM
:flame: :flame: :flame: If it were an instrumental it would be great. I have a hard time liking it thanks to Brucey though.



WHAT!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

DethMaiden
08-01-2007, 09:11 PM
:flame: :flame: :flame:



WHAT!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

He ripped the lyrics from a history book, altered them slightly so they kinda rhymed, then sang them super-fast because the music was already written and he didn't want to have to fix it.

Div
08-01-2007, 09:22 PM
He ripped the lyrics from a history book, altered them slightly so they kinda rhymed, then sang them super-fast because the music was already written and he didn't want to have to fix it.



:hmm:

powerslave_85
08-01-2007, 09:38 PM
He ripped the lyrics from a history book, altered them slightly so they kinda rhymed, then sang them super-fast because the music was already written and he didn't want to have to fix it.
Yeah, the vocals are just extremely awkward, and the lyrics are even worse.

SomewhereInTime72
08-02-2007, 07:11 AM
Are you guys dissing me? :flame:

JRA
08-02-2007, 07:27 AM
He ripped the lyrics from a history book, altered them slightly so they kinda rhymed, then sang them super-fast because the music was already written and he didn't want to have to fix it.

Except Steve wrote the lyrics to that song.;)

DethMaiden
08-02-2007, 10:06 AM
Except Steve wrote the lyrics to that song.;)

Really? I'm pretty sure it was the good folks at Houghton-Mifflin ;)

es156
08-02-2007, 10:20 AM
Are you guys dissing me? :flame:

Ha ha, set them straight SIT72!!

EvilCheeseWedge
08-02-2007, 11:20 AM
Just the kind of shit logic I'd expect from a Queensryche fanboy. Now Ryche are one of my favorite bands, but the whole Mindcrime thing is such a gimmick at this point.

Just the kind of shit logic I'd expect from a Maiden fan boy. Now, I used to be a big Maiden fan boy, but at least when Queensryche pulls a "gimmick" they still play a longer set then Maiden, and bother to actually tour with it, instead of playing, you know, what, 8 shows here? LOL.

DethMaiden
08-02-2007, 11:34 AM
Just the kind of shit logic I'd expect from a Maiden fan boy. Now, I used to be a big Maiden fan boy, but at least when Queensryche pulls a "gimmick" they still play a longer set then Maiden, and bother to actually tour with it, instead of playing, you know, what, 8 shows here? LOL.

Exactly. Call it a gimmick, but it was a three hour, cross-country gimmick :D

JRA
08-02-2007, 12:19 PM
Really? I'm pretty sure it was the good folks at Houghton-Mifflin ;)

Bah. Houghton-Mifflin has been slackin off. ;)

Blitzkrieg Witchcraft
08-02-2007, 02:56 PM
I wish I could have seen it once. Eight dates, pfft.


exactly. I can't believe they totally skipped Texas. :mad:

Maiden33
08-02-2007, 08:14 PM
Just the kind of shit logic I'd expect from a Maiden fan boy. Now, I used to be a big Maiden fan boy, but at least when Queensryche pulls a "gimmick" they still play a longer set then Maiden, and bother to actually tour with it, instead of playing, you know, what, 8 shows here? LOL.

Alright, Brad knows at this point I just pick on him for fun, as he does to me. I meant nothing offensive by that comment, and as I mentioned, Queensryche are one of my favorite bands, and hell, Mindcrime may be my favorite album of all time... that's not the point. It was just a joke directed at Brad, hence why I quoted him rather than making a general reply.
I'm not a Maiden fanboy but I'd rather be a Maiden fan than the 98% of their fanbase who are NEVER satisfied.

EvilCheeseWedge
08-03-2007, 06:57 AM
Alright, Brad knows at this point I just pick on him for fun, as he does to me. I meant nothing offensive by that comment, and as I mentioned, Queensryche are one of my favorite bands, and hell, Mindcrime may be my favorite album of all time... that's not the point. It was just a joke directed at Brad, hence why I quoted him rather than making a general reply.
I'm not a Maiden fanboy but I'd rather be a Maiden fan than the 98% of their fanbase who are NEVER satisfied.
Fair enough, but 98%? I kinda think that might be inflated ;)